Canon EOS 70D officially announced!

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16188467
I see a little more green chroma noise in the 7D, but yeah, they both look unusable to me too.

I wonder... What the heck is Fuji doing with their sensors! Their Prox1 is nipping at the heals of even the mighty 6D for high ISO performance. I don't see much detail loss either. REMARKABLE! Screw Nikon's benchmark, Canon should be aiming for Fuji.

Anyone have ideas as to what's going on with the Fuji sensor and why it looks so clean and detailed?

Some details here.
http://www.fujifilmusa​.com …fujifilm_x_pro1​/features/

I downloaded the 7d and 70d raw files ISO 3200. Used dng converter and put in 25 luminance noise on reduction in lightroom 4 and gave a bit of contrast with the curves. The 70d file was about a half stop brighter so i took it down a half stop. Both to me look almost identical. The 70d seems a bit warmer but as for noise I cannot see any difference. You will likely gain 3mp and great video, but it does seem that the Image quality will be practically identical to the 18mp models

shinksma wrote in post #16188224
Bold my emphasis:

Do you prefer to shoot jpg for space reasons (more images on the card), or simply because you find you don't need to push the raw image around much and the jpg is already suitable?

shinksma

I agree with Dre. The jpgs do look better and it probably has to do with new algorithms and the digic 5+ processor.

When I first started shooting DSLR, it was almost exclusively raw and that was because I didn't trust my abilities. Now that I have much more experience, I shoot mostly jpg. I find that I am getting it right in the camera more often than not, and I can go on shooting sprees taking hundreds or thousands of shots. Who has the time to process all of those? Most of the time, I was importing raw and exporting right to jpg. Seemed kind of silly. Certain shots I will take with both raw and jpg, but again even with those, I find that the camera can sometimes do a better job than me in post.

gjl711 wrote in post #16188660
Some details here.
http://www.fujifilmusa​.com …fujifilm_x_pro1​/features/

That's pretty cool! Thanks for the link. There must be some drawback to their method, but I can't see anything wrong with the DPR test images.

Could you imagine what a FF camera could do with that technology? It would absolutely destroy the competition having a FF ISO 12800 that looks like FF ISO 3200.

I've been shooting for over 20 years and have always been impressed with how Fuji manages to innovate with their technology. They also make some remarkable mega zoom lenses for high end broadcast and video work. I would be trilled to buy a FF mirrorless from them as long as I could adapt some Nikon and Canon glass onto there.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #16188836
That's pretty cool! Thanks for the link. There must be some drawback to their method, but I can't see anything wrong with the DPR test images.

Could you imagine what a FF camera could do with that technology? It would absolutely destroy the competition having a FF ISO 12800 that looks like FF ISO 3200.

I've been shooting for over 20 years and have always been impressed with how Fuji manages to innovate with their technology. They also make some remarkable mega zoom lenses for high end broadcast and video work. I would be trilled to buy a FF mirrorless from them as long as I could adapt some Nikon and Canon glass onto there.

If your impressed with that, Fuji and Panasonic anounced a new sensor technology that promises to better the DR of the Exmore significantly. SOme info here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1319284

gjl711 wrote in post #16188853
If your impressed with that, Fuji and Panasonic anounced a new sensor technology that promises to better the DR of the Exmore significantly. SOme info here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1319284

I've seen that already. I'm only impressed with tech that is shipping and proven. We'll have to wait and see about that one.

Here's the issue I have found with non-standard bayer arrays like the Fuji. Programs like Adobe LR and ACR don't handle the RAW conversion well at all, apparently. I could live with that as long as some converter would give me a decent 16bit Tiff to import into Photoshop, where I can do the rest myself.

I wonder why Nikon and Canon sensors get all the attention when Fuji is just destroying them in the high ISO game. I can see why there was so much hype about the Fuji APS-C sensors competing with the Canon 5D2 not too long ago. They've really thrown down the gauntlet, IMO.

gjl711 wrote in post #16187855
really? I saw the opposite unless your comparing in camera processed jpegs.

When I compared RAWs at 6400 I thought that the 70D noise was a tiny bit better than the 7D - at least in lighter areas of the image and the face. Then again this may just be due to exposure differences between the two shots.

I like how the 70D finally put the friggin zoom buttons back where they belong. They must have received a lot of complaints about the ridiculous zoom button to scroll wheel setup. I've gotten used to it on my 6D, but I would prefer the buttons where they have always been. The single press to 100% zoom is pretty sweet on the 6D though. Hope the 70D works the same, because it works great!

shinksma wrote in post #16188224
Bold my emphasis:

I am surprised by this. You can always get the same/better jpg from a raw file, and often save an image using the raw data compared to what was output as jpg (e.g. overexposed areas), where the jpg itself is beyond saving.

I've been shooting raw since the first DSLR I got, since it seemed easy enough to process them, and it seemed better to start off with the best data possible, even if my final jpg looks not much different from the one SOOC.

Do you prefer to shoot jpg for space reasons (more images on the card), or simply because you find you don't need to push the raw image around much and the jpg is already suitable?

shinksma

it's both a time and a space issue for me...for one i'm probably not very quick at processing raws, i'm sure there's batch editing, but i've never really looked into it to be honest...and for the typical shots for me they end up looking pretty much the same...for the most part though, if i'm in somewhat good conditions, i just don't see the need, as i don't push and pull the image in post that much...it's the times where i need more dynamic range that i use raw

I've been shooting with a T3i for quite a while.
I am long due for an upgrade.

I was planning for the 6D but then the full-frame is very limiting with lens selection. For example, I'd need something like a 24-70 F/2.8 with image stabilization (great for video and low light). Only option is Tamron because the pricing on everything else is significantly more.


70D is looking good for me because the flip screen is very handy for video shooting, getting those awkward low angle photo's, also the lens selection is larger and cheaper.


One and only thing it comes down to is how it handles in low light and the ISO performance.

With the T3I you start getting quite a bit of noise at 1600iso and 3200iso is pretty much unusable.
With the 70D I hope at 3200ISO there is not as much noise, and useable images/videos.

Is there any tests on ISO performance on this camera yet?

mlech wrote in post #16189600
One and only thing it comes down to is how it handles in low light and the ISO performance.

With the T3I you start getting quite a bit of noise at 1600iso and 3200iso is pretty much unusable.
With the 70D I hope at 3200ISO there is not as much noise, and useable images/videos.

Is there any tests on ISO performance on this camera yet?

The T3i has the same sensor as my 60D. Do you consider these unusable?

ISO 6400

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …IMG_3011gimp102​4.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …IMG_3012adpp102​4.jpg.html

mlech wrote in post #16189600
With the T3I you start getting quite a bit of noise at 1600iso and 3200iso is pretty much unusable.
With the 70D I hope at 3200ISO there is not as much noise, and useable images/videos.

Is there any tests on ISO performance on this camera yet?

As pointed out by MakisM1, you can get good high-ISO performance out of the T3i/60D/7D sensor, you just have to develop good technique for exposing (I can't say I have been terribly successful, but I am aware of the idea). The first thing is to slightly over-expose - yes, you lose a bit of the shutter speed you gained by pumping the ISO higher, but it helps lower the "noise floor" I guess.

Then use good noise-reduction tools in your editing arsenal. PP is where many of the gains are to be made in taking a "meh" photo and turning it into something "good" or "great".

The hope with the 70D/7DII/nextgenwhatev​er is it will match the 6D in higher-ISO performance, so that those techniques can push the images even further.

shinksma

mlech wrote in post #16189600
...
Is there any tests on ISO performance on this camera yet?

Yes, post 1213.

shinksma wrote in post #16189740
As pointed out by MakisM1, you can get good high-ISO performance out of the T3i/60D/7D sensor, you just have to develop good technique for exposing (I can't say I have been terribly successful, but I am aware of the idea). The first thing is to slightly over-expose - yes, you lose a bit of the shutter speed you gained by pumping the ISO higher, but it helps lower the "noise floor" I guess.

Then use good noise-reduction tools in your editing arsenal. PP is where many of the gains are to be made in taking a "meh" photo and turning it into something "good" or "great".

The hope with the 70D/7DII/nextgenwhatev​er is it will match the 6D in higher-ISO performance, so that those techniques can push the images even further.

shinksma

That's the biggest problem I have when people try to tell me that APS-C high ISO is nearly as useful as a FF camera, it really isn't. The only reason I shoot at higher ISO's is to either A) use a narrower DOF, or B) use a faster shutter-speed. So having to change either to allow me to ETTR defeats the purpose imo.

I do think you can get useable shots up to ISO 6400, but barely. I can shoot all the way up to 25,600 on my 6D and still get better results than my M at 6400 without having to ETTR, and I don't think it's that the 6D has less noise per-se, but that the patterns in the noise are much more pleasing to my eye. So even if the 70D still has the same noise as the 7D/60D as long as they've changed the way the pattern looks and gotten rid of the banding issues, I'd call it a notable improvement. Even the EOS M has been a welcomed improvement over my old T2i.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16189797
That's the biggest problem I have when people try to tell me that APS-C high ISO is nearly as useful as a FF camera, it really isn't. The only reason I shoot at higher ISO's is to either A) use a narrower DOF, or B) use a faster shutter-speed. So having to change either to allow me to ETTR defeats the purpose imo.

It takes about 2/3 of a stop to ETTR for most of my low light shots. I have literally hundreds of ISO 6400 photos (effectively ISO 5000 if I didn't ETTR). You can hardly see any noise (if you are interested, click on the photo with the plates and browse the whole album, shot at ISO 3200/6400 with the occasional ISO 12800).

And these were from last year, when I did not use the actions I am using now. Yes, I can't shoot at 25600, but I can bring reasonable results with 6400 even 12800. Results that can be had with a modest T2i/T3i at less than 500 bucks.